Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the bring-your-a-game dept

Let's get right to it, with the post that easily won out for most insightful this week... and seeing as we're all (so we're told) a bunch of copyright infringing pirates, wouldn't you know it: the winning comment was "infringing." That is, the winning comment was posted by an Anonymous Coward, but it was actually a repost of a comment from back in April by Rich Fiscus. Oddly, the original comment didn't win the award that week, and got nearly four times the votes this week. Not quite sure who technically "wins" this one, but we'll give it to Fiscus, with an assist to the Anonymous Coward who reminded us all of the comment:

Rich Fiscus posted a nice comment here on Techdirt a while ago that I really liked. The post explains how the courts have perverted the initial intent of the free speech/free press clause to mean "big media corporations" when nothing of the sort was originally intended. It deserves more attention and so I am going to repost it here.

"The discussion about whether Wikileaks should be considered "the press" is entirely ridiculous. The press, as referenced in the US Constitution, isn't limited to 20th century media organizations. In fact, if we limit it to that definition we also have to conclude that there was no press when the Constitution was written. Since it's specifically referenced in the 1st Amendment we can safely say that's incorrect.

The same definition of the press which would exclude Wikileaks from 1st Amendment protection would likewise exclude Benjamin Franklin. His publications had more in common with blogs and issue advocacy websites than modern newspapers. That, in and of itself, tells me it's a faulty definition. What freedom of the press is supposed to mean is freedom of publication. It refers not to a privileged group of people and organizations, but literally to a printing press, which was synonymous with publication when the US Constitution was written.

By extension, any prosecution of Julian Assange for assisting in leaking secret information while allowing newspapers, television broadcasters, and the like to publish classified information they've collected by interviewing government officials without similar action amounts to granting special legal status to The Press which was never intended by the Founding Fathers.

Whether the government has the right to take action over the publication of a particular state secret is something we should certainly discuss and debate. But any answer which relies on whether it was a media outlet or journalist who did the publishing has no legitimate constitutional basis. Likewise, if it was a crime for Wikileaks to assist in leaking US government secrets, it's ridiculous to say mainstream media outlets shouldn't be prosecuted for convincing government officials to leak other secrets.

Sadly, it's primarily The Press themselves I blame for our modern misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. More than anyone else, they are responsible for the myth that a handful of words in the middle of an amendment enumerating the rights of the people are actually meant only to apply to them, and not to the public at large. They are the first to declare that an individual who isn't part of their fraternity isn't afforded the same protection they enjoy under the 1st Amendment and the last to criticize journalist shield laws which apply only to them. The fact is, there are no rights of The Press enumerated in the Constitution. Only rights of the people which also extend to The Press."

Coming in second was this comment from wallow-T concerning police trying (but thankfully not succeeding) to destroy a video that was recorded of them firing on (and killing) people in Miami Beach:

A failure to prosecute the police for destruction of evidence is a clear sign that we are crossing over into a police state.

Any video of a homicide, justified or not, is evidence.

I've got three editor's choice picks this week. First, from Marcus Carab is his response to someone asking if the activist group Demand Progress had "demanded any progress in stopping illegal behavior on the internet," to which Marcus explained:

Yup! They demand an end to the illegal abuse of copyright law by private interests.

Then we've got Chris O'Donnell, responding to the news that Texas governor Rick Perry might not want to have the anti-TSA groping bill reintroduced because he believes it might hurt his Presidential contender chances. Chris found that reasoning troubling:

So standing up for Civil Rights (even if it is mostly grandstanding) is a losing position for a politician? That probably tells you everything you need to know about the sorry state of our country.

That is the point isn't it? We should outlaw any new technology if it allows some people to use it for illegal purposes. That is the reason the US even has a gun debate today. Because some people use guns to kill people, we should not be allowed to own guns.

Same for DVRs, VCRs, Modchips etc, because some people use them for illegal purposes we should ban the use of them for all people.

Why bother enforcing laws and punishing those who actually commit crimes when we can ban the technology that allows for crimes to take place to begin with.

We would have a whole lot fewer piracy and money laundering problems if we just banned the internet. After all, the majority of child porn is transferred over the internet. Same for piracy and money laundering. Just get rid of the internet and all these problems would simply vanish.

While we are at it, we should probably ban the private ownership of automobiles because some people use them in drive by shooting, to run people over and for quick getaways from burglaries.

We should also ban the use of motor fuels and other flammable substances because people can use them for arson.

Don't even get me started on the use of the written word. People use that all the time to communicate criminal activity. No one should be allowed to communicate through written means.

Also gatherings of people. We should ban people from gathering together in a single space because they might be colluding to commit crimes. Gatherings should be limited to 2 people max, but that should only be done with competent police supervision to prevent any kind of collusion to commit crime.

Finally, we need to ban privacy in all its forms so that people will have no avenue to hide their crimes or plans and means to commit crime. If people have no privacy they will have no time to commit crime.

Problems of the world have been solved.

Ok. Of course you all come for the funny, and not just the insightful, so let's switch over to that side of the ledger. Coming in first, by a wide margin, and setting a new record for actually getting enough votes to trigger the "funny icon" while still in the Techdirt Crystal Ball, was Marcus Carab's comment on that Miami Beach story about the police trying to destroy the evidence of a guy who filmed them shooting people:

Ridiculous - he wasn't even dancing!

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what's known as a callback in the comedy business.

Coming in as a strong second was rubberpants, with his thoughts on Texas' anti-TSA groping bill:

I don't know why but this really rubs me the wrong way. They think they can just handle this law with the stroke of a pen? It's like they're groping in the dark for a solution. I'm touched that they would try but it just doesn't feel right. Take a peek guys, this is what naked ambition looks like.

Someone apparently likes themselves some double entendres. For editor's choice, there were a lot of good ones this week and it's been difficult to narrow them down, so you get a bunch of extras. First up, we've got two response to the story of how both the LA Times and the NY Times have come out against the PROTECT IP Act, which the entertainment industry was pretty sure would breeze through Congress without much of a problem. The two comments are similar, as some of the Act's supporters in recent weeks have taken to our comments to (1) tell us anyone who doesn't like the act is a "freetard" and (2) trying to associate anyone who is against PROTECT IP as being in favor of child porn (well, that's one commenter in particular who specifically works for people trying to pass PROTECT IP, though he doesn't like to admit that). So first, we have the comment from Prisoner 201 in response to that particular commenter:

This is shocking, I never thought I would see the day when LA Times and NY Times support child pornography!!!

And, similarly, from an Anonymous Coward a comment on the other bit of name calling:

So does this mean that we can call the LA Times and the NY Times freetards?

Then we've got Marcus Carab (yes, again, damn him) with his response to the news that James Joyce's Ulysses will be hitting the public domain in Ireland (though not in the US) next year. It inspired Marcus to plan for his next project:

Now I can work on my homage! I'm going to re-tell Ulysses, except with an ancient Greek hero who gets lost at sea on his way home.

That's not just a good joke, it's almost so obvious that I'm sorta pissed I didn't include it in the post itself...

Next up, we've got Jason's hilarious response to France's explanation for telling news media they can no longer tell people to follow them on Twitter or Facebook because that constitutes "free advertising." The official explanation noted that allowing this would be "opening a Pandora's Box -- other social networks will complain to us saying, 'why not us?'" Jason noted:

Obviously Pandora has paid the obligatory fee to stay on the air.

That joke was actually copied by PrometheeFeu in his favorite posts of the week, but that's okay, because PrometheeFeu also had this comment concerning the fact that multiple people come up with the same jokes:

I have a good one for you: [This joke is no longer available due to a copyright claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Remember, copying is stealing.]

Last week, I asked you all to bring your A game, and it seemed that you did that quite well, so what do we say this week? Bring your A+ game?

Comment voting

That is, the winning comment was posted by an Anonymous Coward, but it was actually a repost of a comment from back in April by Rich Fiscus. Oddly, the original comment didn't win the award that week, and got nearly four times the votes this week

Of course a lot depends on story that the comment is posted on - and when in the sequence it is posted - so maybe the message is that if you have a good point that hasn't had "recognition" yet it may be worth reposting it in the hope of a bigger audience second time around

Re:

That's why it's called the Editor's Choice, and not Random Person Who Doesn't Give A Rat's Ass Choice. The sec ond one may be more correct, but the first one just rolls off the tongue like murder off OJ.

Re: Re:

It just seems meaningless, that's all. It seems all the top commentators now are posting stories, which really seems to lower the overall level of the discussions. Rewarding them for yelling "AMEN" isn't exactly adding to the discussion either.

Solutions 1st 4th amendment and child Pornography

Just to let you know solutions exist! We make x-ray/mm-wave protective undergarments, protecting the public from intrusive and radiation emitting airport scanners. This in not limited to just airports DHS/TSA has deployed and has plans for expanded coverage in train, bus and other public buildings. Not to mention mobile z-backscatter x-ray vans on the streets, look it up.

Re: Re: Re:

Remember that the main category is based on the voting - it may be somewhat affected by the popularity of the story - and when the comment gets posted (relative to when most people read the story) but other than those random factors it is pretty much fair.

Re: Re: Re:

"It just seems meaningless, that's all. It seems all the top commentators now are posting stories, which really seems to lower the overall level of the discussions."

No, it doesn't lower the bar, what it does is bring different view points to the discussion that follow the same path. Getting the people who are most familiar with the subject matter to comment is nothing new. This is how HuffPo got its start. It is a brilliant idea, it creates a place for those who are interested in IP, the constitution, the party of we, liberty, free speech, and an open internet to gather and discuss what interests us.

It is not meaningless. It is not a waste of time. It is not something a person whose rent is paid in fish, moss, and what ever else is beneath a bridge would understand. It is an on going debate that affects us all. The sooner you realize an open society is being built around you the better you will fare.

Re: Solutions 1st 4th amendment and child Pornography

Listening Licence

The RIAA has identified a new revenue stream that can help make up for the billions of dollars in losses from piracy. Right now we offer licences for establishments to play our music such as radio stations, dance clubs, shopping malls etc. These licences are granted only for playing the music but not for people to actually listen to the music. In order to listen to music a separate listening licence must be purchased for each individual song.

Listening licences are for individual listeners and cannot be transferred or sold. Listening licences will be required at bars, nightclubs, theaters that show movies with soundtracks, elevators, dances, social clubs, and for home or car listening. Business will be required to collect fees for listening licence from anyone who is in earshot of the music throughout the entire sound perimeter which includes people who may be outside of the building but may still be exposed to errant music that they are not licensed to hear. Each listener who has purchased a listening Licence must carry it prominently on their persons to show they are authorized to hear the music. Anyone listening without a listening licence will be subject to lawsuits as well as criminal prosecution.

Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

To the rest of the world, the US can seem like a Bizarro version of reality sometimes.

Let me explain it to you. All those other things listed, parta from guns, actually have a constructive use. But guns are only good for one thing: blowing holes in things. If I want to make a hole in something, I can use a drill. The difference with a gun is that it makes the hole violently.

So holes and violence—that’s basically what you do with guns. To try to conflate a right to own weaponry with a right to own things with non-violent uses is, quite simply, incomprehensible to people in most of the civilized world.

Re: Re: Solutions 1st 4th amendment and child Pornography

Agreed. You really should check out his site though - it's pretty hilarious. I would actually be much more frightened about putting anything they manufactured near my junk than I am about backscatter scanners...

Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

You missed the point. Guns are violent, but they do have a legitimate purpose. That's why we allow them to exist. The point you so successfully missed is that guns are perceived to cause harm, yet we allow them because we also acknowledge their useful purposes. Tools that enable infringement are perceived to cause harm, yet there is a huge effort to ban these tools from existence despite the fact that they enable other useful purposes.

Violence has nothing to do with it. They are both seen as tools that cause harm, but one is given a pass because it also useful in non-harmful ways. This attitude woefully misses reality though. The tool is not the problem. It's how they are used that is the issue that needs to be dealt with, but it's easier to take away the tools than to modify behavior, regardless of whether it's right to do so. Nevertheless, people are trying anyway.

Re: Re: Re: Listening Licence

Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

Further to the point, guns cause actual harm (They can kill living things like people and animals.), while there has been no real evidence that tools that enable infringement cause any measurable harm.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

Yes, we have the right to keep and bear arms so that when a government turns tyrannical, we can overthrow it. You're also right that we're not supposed to have a standing military, but corporations can't wage private wars, that would make them look bad. It's better that the government does it and takes the the bad reputation while paying the bill with our tax money.

Interesting. In retrospect, I do recall reading Jason's comment but in all honesty, I cannot remember whether I came up with the joke while reading the original article or was later inspired by Jason's comment. Either way, let's give credit where it's due, I got a good laugh at your comment. Thanks.

Wait, my lawyer is calling me. Give me a second...

Boy was I wrong... Let me try again: Jason you thief! You stole my joke! You obviously hacked into my computer as I was taking notes for my favorites post! I was going to make exactly 3.14 billion dollars. I'm DMCAing Techdirt and suing you Jason for your reckless disrespect for copyright law. As for the rest of you who laughed at my stolen joke just remember that because laughter is inspired by the joke, you are technically performing the joke and owe me royalties. Gimme!

US Constitution not International law.

I guess then that considering Assange is Australian, and he was operating from Sweden, that the US CONSTITUTION NOT being an international law or constitution (I bet you didn't know that), therefore who gives a flying rates ass about the US constitution or the first amendment.

(which states that CITIZENTS have a right to free speech against the GOVERNMENT)..

(I assume you did not know that either).

The rest of the world are far more fortunate that those in the US or A, as we do not have a list of "things we can do" as well as a list of "things we cannot do".

And you think your free LOL..

US Constitution = "the things your Government has 'allowed' you to do".

US LAW = "the list of things you are not allowed to do"

Great system that !!!!!!!!

Thank goodness it does not apply to Australians working and living (at the time) in Sweden.

To be considered "press" you have to abide by a set out and specific "code of ethics" it has nothing to do with the constitution or 'free speech' or freedom of press.

That code of ethics is there for a reason, and if you do not apply that code you are not 'press'.

You also must understand that wikileaks employes far more censorship than that of any other 'news' agency, if you can call them that.

I guess the ligitamite use for Guns in the US is to keep your population in check !!!.. smart move !

How many guns helped you on 9/11 ?

but it still comes down to the fact that you are willing to live with a list of things you are allowed to do, and another list of things you are NOT allowed to do. It is amusing that you think that system is better somehow.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

Re: US Constitution not International law.

You seem to misunderstand what the Constitution is. It is not a list of things the government allows us to do. It is a list of things the citizens allows the government to do. Huge difference. Simply because the government has decided otherwise, and that the people through their general apathy, does not change that fact.

On the subject of US Law, that is meant to uphold those measures the Constitution protects. Simply because the government has decided it does not like its little box, and the people through their general apathy allows, does not change that fact.

Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

It is wonderful news that the rest of the civilized world has done away with a need for guns.

We in the U.S. still have people who will break into our houses at night to harm us or take our stuff. We have a few who will attack people just because they are different, or because they might have money, or just to rape or injure them for sheer enjoyment.
Our police are so inneffective that they only respond to crime AFTER it has been committed. But, we have found that citizens armed with guns are somewhat of a deterrent, especially to the dead criminals.

Also we have millions of acres of land without a lot of people, and have found that hunting provides an excellent way to control animal populations while providing an opportunity to enjoy the wilderness and use some of those animals as food. (I know that's a difficult concept, but we understand it even if you don't)

We even have a few people who think shooting holes in targets is just good fun, or possibly a valuable skill for a nation that prizes its freedoms. - An old saying here goes something like, "A gun defends the freedom of the press better than a printing press defends guns". A trip to most any country where the media and the guns are all controlled by the same group would help you understand this concept, espescially if you protest against that group.

In the US we still consider blowing holes in things a constructive use of a tool. If that makes us "backward" then so be it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

The reason we have guns now is not to protect us from other countries but from the idiots in our own. I am in fact female and do own and carry a gun of my own. (concealed with a permit of course) While I appreciate our police here and believe they do a great job I'm not stupid enough to think they have ESP and can sense when someone is going to rob, abduct, or kill me. I don't know who came up with the argument "If you outlaw guns only criminals will have them" but I whole-heartedly agree with them.

Re: Re:

Re: US Constitution not International law.

>> I guess then that considering Assange is Australian, and he was operating from
>> Sweden, that the US CONSTITUTION NOT being an international law or
>> constitution (I bet you didn't know that), therefore who gives a flying rates
>> ass about the US constitution or the first amendment.

I would hope the US courts do. And since most of the legal issues surrounding Assange involve whether he should be charged and tried in the US that seems completely relevant.

>> (which states that CITIZENTS have a right to free speech against the
>> GOVERNMENT)..
>>
>> (I assume you did not know that either).

That's not what it says at all. It only relates to the government insofar as it forbids them from making laws restricting free speech. Nowhere does it say "free speech" only refers to speech against the government.

>> US Constitution = "the things your Government has 'allowed' you to do".

You really should read a document before you lecture others on what it says. The US Constitution lays out what the government is allowed to do, not the people. The first ten amendments, aka The Bill of Rights, were added to be more specific about things the government can't do because they are assumed to automatically violate rights of the people. They were added because some of the Founding Fathers didn't feel the original document went far enough in laying out the boundaries of government authority. In fact, the Tenth Amendment specifically states that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is outside the Federal Government's authority.

>> To be considered "press" you have to abide by a set out and specific "code of ethics" it has nothing
>> to do with the constitution or 'free speech' or freedom of press.
-snip-
>> The only person assange is interested in is himself...

Fortunately in the US we make no legal distinction based on prejudging someone's motives. The First Amendment isn't about protecting the pure of mind and heart. It's about preventing the government from interfering in something that we, the people, deem to be none of their business. What you're describing is a privilege. According to the US Constitution free speech, and the publication of that speech, is a right.

Re: Re: its like smoking pot

Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

> Let me explain it to you. All those other things listed, parta
> from guns, actually have a constructive use. But guns are
> only good for one thing: blowing holes in things. If I want t
> make a hole in something, I can use a drill. The difference
> with a gun is that it makes the hole violently.

Sometimes violently blowing a hole in something is not only constructive but the only tool for the job. When you hear the glass window break downstairs in the middle of the night, Black & Decker just isn't gonna cut it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

> The only reason you have guns in 2011, is because your
> idiots!!!.. sorry but anything who thinks an armed population
> is a good thing has rocks in their head.

And yet every American city with strict gun control is a violent war zone with a sky-rocketing murder rate. And states/cities with liberal ownership and carry laws have the lowest crime rates. It's the one fact that you gun grabbers can't spin away and it drives you nuts.

> If you cannot work out that guns have ONLY ONE PURPOSE,
> and see that that purpose is STUPID

Yes, they have one purpose but there's nothing stupid about defending yourself, your family and your property. It's a basic human right.

Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

> Our police are so inneffective that they only respond to
> crime AFTER it has been committed.

Since our police are so terrible that they can't psychically predict when, where, and how a crime is going to take place, and get there to stop it before it occurs, perhaps you can point out a country whose police force *can* do those things.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

If you can't think of any useful purpose for guns beyond unchecked violence, then it's no surprise that you can't see the value in tools that enable file sharing. You must pretty damn stupid if you think the existence of guns is the cause of violence. Violence never needed guns to propagate. If people desire to be violent, they will do it by any means necessary. Guns are a tool of violence not its creator. People create violence, violent people use whatever tool is available to perpetrate violence. If not guns, it will be something else. I fear to imagine what that "else" would be. No, banning guns would serve no good. Modifying the circumstances that ignite violence would be far more effective. Take away a person's reason to be violent and there will be no violence. The gun is not the reason.

"How many guns helped on 9/11?"

That's a disingenuous question at it's face. There were no guns on the planes that crashed into the WTC you pompous ass. Had there been guns on board and in the hands of people trained to use them properly, 9/11 might not have been what it was.

What's the purpose of a gun? To serve as a warning to those that might try to cause harm. Try to commit a crime and someone may point a gun at you. A deterrent to violence. The best weapon is one you don't have to fire. A marksman's tool. They are used in competitions. They are used by ordinary citizens when the police can't be relied on. They are used for hunting to protect wildlife from overpopulating and wiping out other wildlife and feed people who rely on hunting for their way of life (yes people do hunt for a living still).

"but it still comes down to the fact that you are willing to live with a list of things you are allowed to do, and another list of things you are NOT allowed to do."

Wow, that's just full of stupid! Of course there's a list of things we allow and a list of things we don't. It's called the law. It lists what we are not allowed to do and, by elimination, lists what we can do.

The fact remains that criminals have guns and they will still have guns if they are banned. The only difference is that you've just disarmed the public and left them open to whatever the criminals think they can get away with before the cops show up.

The same goes for infringement. If you ban torrents, peer to peer, and other such tools, the "criminals" will still have them. Except, the criminals will be everyone.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

Actually there were. Where do you think the first central banks came from? This new nation was poor and needed money, so the banks convinced them to create a central bank to improve the economy, as well as "contributions" to the government I'm sure.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?

"Guns were first started in the US because of the fear that Brittan would invade the "new lands" and take over."

Nope, that's completely totally wrong. The right to bear arms was added to the Bill of Rights to give citizens to power to overthrow the government if it ever became as tyrannical as the British government. They were also, not an American invention. Firearms have been around since the middle ages in one form or another.

"The only reason you have guns in 2011, is because your idiots!!!.."

We're idiots because we want to be able to defend ourselves if another government or our own decides to attack us on our own soil? The right to bears arms is a civil defense tool. Idiot.

"If you cannot work out that guns have ONLY ONE PURPOSE, and see that that purpose is STUPID"

Guns have more than one purpose and it's not stupid. Only an ignorant fool that doesn't understand them would make such a statement.

"Help's evolution.."

Oh, right. Evolution, the theory of "survival of the fittest" would argue that people without guns would be the most fit for survival? Idiot.

"(not to mention medical insurance companies LOVE IT)"

Wow, you are a fool aren't you? Health insurance wants nothing more for you to pay your bills and not get injured or sick. If they have to pay for your health care, the lose idiot.

Re: Yes, we have the right to keep and bear arms so that when a government turns tyrannical, we can overthrow it.

How well has that worked out, then? As I remember, the one large-scale insurrection by a large part of the populace against a “tyrannical” government, back in the 1860s, didn’t end at all well for the side that fired the first shot.

And another more recent armed rebellion, in 1993 in Waco, Texas, was easily suppressed with nary a murmur of dissent from the general public.

And what about when Obama was elected—didn’t a number of people say he was going to “destroy America”? So what have they done about it? Nothing but talk.

It seems like this whole “guns to protect against the Government” thing is bullshit. Empty chest-thumping posturing, nothing more.

Re: Gun Control vs Gun Crime

btr1701:

And yet every American city with strict gun control is a violent war zone with a sky-rocketing murder rate. And states/cities with liberal ownership and carry laws have the lowest crime rates.

I wouldn’t be so sanguine about gun crime in the US. It’s a fact that the US has a much higher rate of gun-related violence going on than most other places in the world—certainly most civilized places.

Re: Re: Gun Control vs Gun Crime

> It’s a fact that the US has a much higher rate of gun-related
> violence going on than most other places in the world—
> certainly most civilized places.

Yep. And most of it occurs in cities where liberal do-gooders have stripped the law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves and turned them into defenseless sheep to be preyed on by the animals who have no intention of obeying any law, let alone the one which bans possession of a firearm.

Re: Listening Licence

That's a good start but it could use some work. Instead of playing "gotcha licensing" and all of the headache that entails (but only from the RIAA's standpoint, of course - nothing an individual endures is worth even mentioning), why not just force every newborn to be issued an involuntary license whenever a positive pregnancy test occurs? I'm sure RIAA could get some credible actuarial evidence to show how many protected works a person is "freely" exposed to on any given month and assess a reasonable fee for this. While this would require other industries to "innovate" to protect Copy's business model, that is, after all, the least they can do. Pregnancy tests could be required to be cellular-enabled so that the appropriate person could be billed by RIAA once the test comes back positive. All of this would be for the greater good. And if you ended up having twins or worse, you would just be subject to late fees and penalties for all of the presumed music that their actuaries would figure a baby in-utero would have heard during nine months of pregnancy.

On the up side, the pro-lifers out there would snag a big ally for changing the legal definition of the beginning of life to the instant the egg gets pierced by the sperm. That way, their license fee would add a few more months of billing for them to hit you with. And as for the rest of us, we can just figure on going to the poor-house since those same actuaries should be able to tell all of us how evil we've been our entire lives without paying our fair share and just assess us for all of our back listening/pirating.

If we're lucky, they'll have payment plans that will appropriately carry us to the grave penniless and knowing that we did everything we could to make things right along the way.